It wasn’t exactly must see TV, but Wednesday night’s congressional debate at the Duxbury Senior Center was a sober and civil reminder of the serious issues that are confronting America today.

Frank Mand

It wasn’t exactly must see TV, but Wednesday night’s congressional debate at the Duxbury Senior Center was a sober and civil reminder of the serious issues that are confronting America today.

The three candidates, representing diverse viewpoints and political affiliations, were incumbent Democrat Bill Keating of Bourne, Republican challenger Chris Sheldon of Plymouth, and Fall River resident Daniel Botelho, an independent.

The questions, which were chosen by the sponsoring organization – the Plymouth Area League of Women Voters – came from residents of the Ninth Congressional District and addressed issues as diverse as the Dream Act, partisan gridlock in Washington D.C., and women’s reproductive rights.

In his opening statement Botelho acknowledged that many in the audience, and the district, may not be familiar with him or his philosophy of government.

For a detailed understanding of his positions, Botelho suggested the audience visit his website: DanielBotelho4Congress.com

Republican challenger Chris Sheldon’s opening statement began with an apology to Keating for a statement Sheldon made at an event held earlier in the year, when he asserted – incorrectly, he admitted – that Keating had no experience in the private sector.

Sheldon then said he was excited about the opportunity, for himself and the Republican Party.

“For the first time in my adult life folks are more excited about Massachusetts Republicans than they are about Boston sports teams. There are a lot of reasons for that. One reason is that we have great candidates – Romney and Scott Brown, and because we have a plan.”

Keating’s opening statement stood out, for two reasons.

Unlike his challengers, Keating chose to stand when he spoke, putting himself literally head and shoulders above the others. And Keating opened by recounting the struggles of his grandmother, who emigrated from Ireland in the early part of the 20th century.

The America she found, Keating said, had no Social Security, no healthcare, none of the protections that we take for granted today. What is at stake in this election are those very fundamental things. The things that made our country different, that provided financial and medical security. The things that gave people the chance to better themselves.”

The questions began with what most people consider America’s top priority – jobs.

“What would you propose to stimulate the economy in order to create more jobs,” moderator Dr. Kathleen Leslie asked.

Keating offered a three-part solution: a clear pathway to reducing the national debt, greater certainty about tax policies and regulation and – something he would return to at several points in the debate – a better educated work force.

“If we do this, if we invest in infrastructure, in new energy and in education, we will have a very promising future,” Keating said.

Sheldon said he agreed with much of what Keating had offered, adding that there was no “magic bullet.”

“We have to pull a number of levers,” Sheldon added, listing tax reform, dealing with the national debt, less regulation, healthcare costs and support for small business.

“We need to work on all these things to get moving in the right direction,” Sheldon said.

Botelho used the question to continue his effort to differentiate himself from both Keating and Sheldon, advocating for a Libertarian-like consumption-based tax or, at least, a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate.

“First of all I just heard the Republican and Democratic viewpoints, which sounded very similar,” Botelho said. “But what if, we actually did it for everyone, had everyone play by the same rules?”

Dr. Leslie then asked the candidates to give their opinion of the more stringent voter ID regulations that are being proposed across the country.

Botelho was strongly in favor of these new requirements.

“If I go to a bank to cash a check, or walk into almost any organization, I have to produce identification,” Botelho said.

Sheldon said it was a foregone conclusion: voter ID was coming to Massachusetts.

“I think it will be put to a vote, will be on the ballot, and I fully expect it to pass here,” Sheldon said.

And while Keating suggested that, at least in Massachusetts, voter fraud was not a problem, Sheldon disagreed.

“I suggest (Keating) talk to the clerk in New Bedford,” Sheldon said, alluding to a 2010 write-in campaign.

“This is our most sacred right, and it is absolutely imperative that we get this right,” Sheldon said. “There is no excuse. We have to show ID for everything else we do in this life.”

Keating, in his answer, said the voter ID movement was, especially in Massachusetts, “a solution in search of a problem.”

“What it does,” Keating said of voter ID laws, “besides solving a problem that doesn’t exist, is create one more barrier to voting, puts a barrier in place for no reason.”

Is there a problem with voter fraud in Massachusetts?

Sheldon’s suggestion that there was serious voter fraud in New Bedford deserves closer scrutiny.

There was a voting problem in New Bedford in 2010, but it didn’t have anything to do with individuals illegally voting. It concerned an allegedly inaccurate count of write-in votes: a serious, but separate issue.

And it would be pointless to ask the New Bedford City clerk about the issue, because the New Bedford Board of Elections handles elections.

Maria Tomasia, chairman of the Board of Elections, said that more than a year after the election in question a candidate requested to see the ballots, alleging that he had been denied several hundred write-in votes.

“He may have received 25 write-in votes, but he assumed that all of the write-in votes were for him,” Tomasia said. “But with write-ins you get votes for Mickey Mouse or somebody’s friend. Some write-in votes are valid, and some are not. It had nothing to do with voter fraud.”

“Would you support the Affordable Care Act (ACA),” Leslie asked the candidates, “and if not, what would you offer to replace it?”

Sheldon was first to answer this, and did so bluntly.

“I would be one of the first votes to repeal it,” Sheldon claimed.

Sheldon said that the ACA would cost more, not work, won’t cover everyone, and will result in an increase in taxes.

“We need to come up with solutions that will lower healthcare costs, increase transparency, increase competition, and encourage people to seek out the lowest cost medical solutions,” Sheldon said.

But Keating said he supports the ACA and has seen evidence that – at least the Massachusetts model on which it is based – is working.

“We can look right to Massachusetts and see what’s happening,” Keating said. “The number of people covered, the level of access is the greatest in the country.”

Keating argued as well that, in part, because of Massachusetts healthcare the state was the first to come out of the recession, was fifth in job growth, and had an unemployment rate almost two points below the national average.

Botelho was against the ACA and said he had an unpleasant personal experience with the Massachusetts version.

The Massachusetts health care system which the ACA is modeled after, he said, “left middle class Americans out in the cold, and I was one of them.”

Botelho said he would favor a two-party payer system, like Canada’s, that would give every American citizen basic well defined health care – and lets you pay more for supplemental care.

Asked to comment on current legislation that could directly affect the people in District 9, neither Sheldon nor Botelho could offer much in the way of specifics.

Sheldon at first said the question was better suited to Congressman Keating, then settled on the so-called “fiscal cliff,” the shorthand term used to describe the financial problems that government will face Jan. 1, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.

“It’s very important that Congress doesn’t allow us to go over the cliff.” Sheldon said, suggesting the country could go into another recession if action isn’t taken.

Botelho agreed, criticizing Congress for just “kicking the can down the road.”

Then instead of discussing other locally relevant legislation, he criticized Congress for spending too much time naming post offices.

“I’d like to see them stop naming post offices. That’s literally about all they have done. There are so many more important things – budgets to be passed, the fiscal cliff, regulation reform,” Botelho said.

Keating said he wouldn’t try to defend Congress’ record of inaction, and offered several specific legislative issues that he felt were important to his constituents.

“Cuts to the National Institute of Health” was one important legislative possibility that needed to be addressed,” Keating said. “Healthcare research is one of our success stories in Massachusetts. It’s good for people suffering from ailments, and for every $1 invested it spins off to $2.28 in economic effects.”

Keating also said that full funding of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was of critical importance to the Ninth District and Massachusetts in general, which ranks second in the nation in SBIR grants.

Should the reproductive rights of women be part of a federal policy, or left to each state to decide?

“I am pro-life, and here’s the thing,” Botelho told the audience.” I don’t want people to think I don’t I don’t have consideration for them. But please don’t ask someone who considers himself moral to make an amoral choice.”

“I’m not going to Washington to legislate on this issue,” Botelho elaborated, “but if it comes across my desk, I will vote on behalf of a pro-life stance.”

In his answer Keating reflected on his time in the state Senate, when he had worked to fund a shelter for pregnant teenage girls who might otherwise be inclined toward abortion because of economic and other pressures.

“There is a place for government in helping in that way,” Keating said, “but when it comes to a woman’s right to privacy I agree with the courts, and with Roe v. Wade. The idea of having different state-by-state enforcement is ludicrous.”

Sheldon agreed with Keating, to a point.

Sheldon supports a woman’s right to choose but also believes that this is a states-rights issue.

“I don’t understand how an individuals’ health decisions are a federal issue,” Sheldon said. “I am pro-choice but won’t support government funding of abortions. Abortions need to be rare, but they need to be legal as well.”

Community Info

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Wicked Local Marion ~ 182 Standish Avenue, Plymouth, MA 02360 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service